If Jharkhand proved anything, it is the resilience of Indian democracy over the dictatorial tendencies of their congress and their allies. Mr.Bidwai has proved himself to be a partisan observer by questioning the credibility of President and Supreme court.
There is no need to show thumbs up or down to anybody when whole foundation on whih every body based is a loser. If groups of indviduals are fighting eachother in a sinking ship, no one need to say who has won. It is matter of shame for both NDA and UPA. Sadly nobody is doing any thing concrete to prevent recurrenc of this incident. No one is interested in cleaning the system. All are looking to hype the things up whenever they are in mess like that of Jharkand. Today it is NDA at receiving end, some other day some other alliance will be there. No refreshing in thinking, no introspection as called by President and no worry to any politician. But still we continue to say our democracy is big and great.
Can we know the credentials of the coulumnist, who is talking more like a communist(Questioning the credibility of institutions like spreme court). The communists do not respect any institution other than the party. They beleive in ruling by force and the article sound more like a suggestion that this should be the case in India.
I regret to tell you that you have manipuated issues to project everyone as a Villains. The governor of Jharkand murdered the democracy in public. So NDA had no choice otherthan protecting its interests by meeting the president. When someone like governor commits such blunders under the pressure from congress and sonia gandhi, there should be someone who has to correct the things. Hence president chipped in to avoid controversies. It is perfectly correct on his side because the governor is a representative to the state on the behalf of the president. Coming to supreme court decision, it had no other way otherthan giving such judgement. If you remember after Soren resigned, it dismissed the case saying the matters have been sorted out.
Let me remind you one thing that no rule like what Westminister said is not applicable in India. Better be careful when writing such articles and claiming that you are the only intelligent soul on the earth.
A nicely written article. But, I with ommissions & partisanship
1) You point that no alliance won the election (NDA =36, UPA =33). Similarly, UPA alliance did not win the national elections (and did not humble the NDA). In fact, UPA's vote % was marginally lower than NDA's. Your subsequent points apply to UPA's national conduct, just as well.
2) I agree that democracy is about an accountable system of political parties that act in consonance with the popular mandate. That is exactly why I cannot call the hodge-podge alliance at the centre 'democratic'
3) On BJP's envoking Emergency - Why should this be an issue when the Gongress glorifies the ex-PM who had scant regard to democarcy and envoked emergency for personal gains and circumvented judiciary's independence.
4) You say the presidential system is highly centralized and unitarian. I think it is much better than our indirect democracy that allows bribery and coercion of MPs & MLAs (which you condemn). In the presidential system, an unpopular leader (like PM) or an unelected alliance (like UPA) cannot rule the country.
5) On Kalam's alleged partisanship -compare with previous ex-congress presidents -who is better?
